Something rather fishy occurred within the past few hours at CNN.com.
Some time Friday, the cable network's website posted a piece entiitled "Treasury chief: Tax rebate checks to go out in May" which included the following (emphasis added, h/t NB reader Chandy):
The package, which passed the Senate 81-16, will send rebate checks to 130 million Americans in amounts of $300 to $600 for people who have an income between $3,000 and $75,000, plus $300 per child. Couples earning up to $150,000 would get $1,200.
The checks are an advance on next year's refunds, and most, if not all of the money, will be deducted from taxpayers' refunds in 12 months' time.
If you click on the link to the article, the above-bolded sentence is nowhere to be found. Yet, it certainly did exist, as CNN.com indicated the following blog linking to this piece asking:
Can This Be TrueDoes this mean what i think it means? From CNN:
The (tax rebate) checks are an advance on next year's refunds, and most, if not all of the money, will be deducted from taxpayers' refunds in 12 months' time.
If this is right, the vaunted "rebates" are in fact loans to be repaid on next year's taxes. So I'm going to get a check that I haven't asked for, and that check is going to increase my tax liability next year, and for this I'm supposed to be grateful?
Can this possibly be true, or is it some kind of misprint?
UPDATE: Sharp-eyed reader Teri notes that the curious sentence quoted above has been removed from the article. Hmm...
Several other blogs have noticed this as well.
This raises two interesting questions: Is this sentence true, and CNN just doesn't want readers to know about it, or; did the author get it wrong, and CNN did a fast delete rather than an update with a retraction?
Stay tuned.
*****Update: Tipster Chandy has provided the following screen-cap of the original article:
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Noel, that is exactly what
February 8, 2008 - 16:21 ET by motherbeltNoel, that is exactly what happened the last time we taxpayers got a "rebate." (that was the first thing I thought of when I heard "rebate" again.) Why anyone would think it would be any different this time is odd.
Still I guess people forget, and CNN is definitely disingenuous....no, let me say negligent....in leaving that out of the article.
Don't cash that check?
February 8, 2008 - 16:28 ET by the curatorDoes anyone know for sure if this is a rebate or an advance? Interestingly, this was a subplot element in a West Wing episode.
Can anyone provide a citation saying if this is, in fact, a rebate or an advance? Vital information and shame on CNN if this is the case and they removed that information.
And shame on the gov't for passing a bupkus bill which fools us into thinking this is a rebate if it isn't.
Huh, I don't remember it
February 8, 2008 - 16:29 ET by dscottHuh, I don't remember it that why, I thought the last time it was an advance on your refund, maybe I am wrong.
Little stinkers, in that case I don't feel so bad about the so called rebate putting the government more in the hole, instead it will put those people who typically go for zero refunds or pay (like me) on April 15th in the hole. <SARCASM> Boy, this will make a lot of retired seniors really happy. <double SARCASM>
Lord Sidious / Darth Vader 2008 Long Live the Empire! Come to the Dark Side, it is your Destiny.
I guess I got mixed up in
February 8, 2008 - 16:41 ET by motherbeltI guess I got mixed up in my recollection...I just knew it wasn't "free money." You are correct; it was an advance on the refund. I just knew turned out not to be anything extra, and I was mad, as most of us probably were.
We will have to wait and see if it's the same, or will be added in as additional income next year, or what they do with it.
CNN was still wrong to leave it out tho.
PS: I've read several diffferent articles on it, and I keep seeing "rebate"...I haven't seen anything about an "advance"...but IIRC, the term "rebate" was thrown around last time too.
Hopefully some real clarification will be forthcoming....
yep
February 8, 2008 - 18:28 ET by UndercoverConservativejust like last time, you'll find you gotta pay if you're claiming "0".
But, you can stick what ya get in the bank and get a little interest on it before you pay it back..
--thus proving, less taxes equals more investment and better economy.
But what's really sad, is folks who do't or didn't pay in much, or for whom every month is a "tax refund" (other peoples' taxes supplying the welfare) will get the same "advance" or more as you. And not have to pay it back.
Plenty of ID thieving "undocumenteds" will be enjoying this windfall as well. It'll get one big spinning chrome rim and tire for their SUV, a nice sized big TV, or a couple of AK's or other "illegal and therefor unobtainable" weapons for their homies, gangs, and racist ethnic "communities".
"to call an illegal immigrant an "undocumented alien" is the same as calling a streetcorner drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist".
Tax Preparer in PA siad it is advance
February 8, 2008 - 16:45 ET by SouthJersey1953A co-worker's tax preparer told him (last week) it was going to be an advance. When he questioned it, she referred him to the CNN.com website!!!!
'08 - Grrrr!
They don't even know
February 8, 2008 - 17:02 ET by the curatorI just got off the phone with a media guy for a US senator. Even HE doesn't know if it's a rebate or an advance. He said one of their economic guys was working on it. Meaning even the ECONOMIC guy didn't know at that time.
Amazing.
It's a REBATE
February 8, 2008 - 17:09 ET by the curatorNot to answer my own question... but, I called the media guy for our other U.S. senator... and he's double-checking to be sure... but, he's confident it is in fact a rebate people will not have to pay back.
Meaning, CNN got it wrong and deleted the mistake.
(If I hear back from that media guy and he changes the story, I'll update)
From Another CNN Story
February 8, 2008 - 18:23 ET by JoelCTFrom A CNN/Money Story titled, "Rebates: What you need to know":
Do I have to pay the rebate back?
No. And here's why.
Your rebate is a one-time tax cut - an advance on a credit you'll receive on your 2008 return.
It's based on your 2007 income initially. If it turns out that your 2008 income and number of children would have qualified you for a larger rebate than the one you received, you'll be sent the difference. If it turns out your 2008 income was lower than in 2007 and you should have gotten a lower rebate, you get to keep the difference.
"If you were supposed to receive a larger payment than you did, you will get the extra money," said Treasury spokesman Andrew DeSouza. "If you received more than what you should have gotten, you will not be penalized."
doubleplusungood!
February 8, 2008 - 18:41 ET by UndercoverConservative"an advance on a credit". Hahaha
Then when you do your taxes next year, you find you extract the amount you were "advanced" from the refund you would have received if you pay extra.
This way, it looks good before the elections. Complete scam. Except it costs a fortune to do the paperwork and move the bureacracy too. If it's a real tax cut, then let it show next year on my refund.
"to call an illegal immigrant an "undocumented alien" is the same as calling a streetcorner drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist".
whoops double post
February 8, 2008 - 18:49 ET by UndercoverConservative"
can't seem to delete it:(
I doubt that the rebates are an advance
February 8, 2008 - 20:44 ET by Dee BunkThat just wouldn't make sense at all because they have no way of knowing what taxpayers are under withheld.
The last time when they sent out checks it was because they did a retro active tax cut so everyone was under withheld for the first half of the year. For example, if the Bush tax cuts would have reduced your taxes by $1200 then you got a check for $600 because employers didn't have the new rates until the middle of the year.
People who didn't understand how taxes work were outraged at tax time because they had to declare the $600 as income. They thought they were in effect giving the money back but really it was just reflecting that the money had already been received. If it wasn't declared as income then then the person's tax cut would have $1800 and it was only supposed to be $1200.
This time I didn't hear anything about tax cuts so I assume that it is a rebate, not an advance. Many people withhold so that they don't get a refund and I'm sure the IRS is not going through everyone's individual circumstances. If they were giving and advance refund they would have to know that you would be getting a refund. Many people (myself included) don't always get a refund - we even have to pay because we don't have enough withheld.
Everyone will most likely have to claim the rebate as income (Just like you would unemployment income social security or any other government payment). That is not the same thing as an advance or having to give the money back.
Tax rebate
February 12, 2008 - 23:10 ET by techlizardThe rebate seems to be structured as a NEW 2008 tax credit we're getting early. Not sure what's so hard to understand about that, or why it wouldn't be considered "extra" money. Instead of your refund going up by $600 next year, you get the money now. Not rocket science, guys.